Just weeks after suffering a crushing defeat in the House of a move to permit a single casino with 5,000 slot machines and 150 table games, Sen. Lou D'Allesandro and other casino true believers are now pushing a bill that would create two casinos with a total of 5,000 slot machines and 240 table games.

The Senate has also sweetened the pot by promising to share $25 million in revenue with cities and towns. Perhaps they can send that in the same empty envelope that contains the state's contributions to the retirement system, which has dropped from 35 percent to absolutely nothing over the past few years.

Casino pushers seem to believe they can bribe some House members who voted against the single-casino bill with promises of money or perhaps even the possibility of having a casino based in their hometown.

While this Senate bill seems even worse than the House bill and should also be defeated, we urge those who understand the danger large-scale casino gambling poses to New Hampshire not to take anything for granted.

Those who oppose casinos must remain vigilant until this latest bad deal is defeated.

In March, it was refreshing indeed when Rye resident Andrew Lietz, who chaired Gov. John Lynch's bipartisan study committee on gambling, dropped his neutral stance and shared his highly informed view on the dangers of casino gambling. Instead of repeating our oft-stated reasons for opposing casinos, here's a reminder of what Lietz had to say.

"First, and most importantly, (a casino) is not the state budget fix that many people think it is," Lietz wrote. "Across the country gambling dollars have become what some refer to as 'legislative cocaine.' Once you have a little bit of it, you want more. The state will not be able to control casino or slot machine gaming the way it thinks it will."

"These gambling dollars will fund new or expanded state programs, and in any economic downturn the state will turn to gambling tax revenue to try to balance its budget. When existing gambling revenue isn't enough we'll have to add more games and more locations to keep state programs going. This will become a perpetual problem that only builds on itself. Every state that has opened the door to gaming has experienced this cycle..."

"Corporate gambling is big business and the financial stakes are high," Lietz wrote. "One of the things our state takes pride in is that our legislative process is not driven by a lot of money. Corporate gaming will change that. It will change the character of our election process and the support of candidates."

"It's also going to affect our local communities. People will spend more of their money in casinos and less in other small businesses in surrounding areas."

"We will experience increased social costs. With gambling comes addiction problems and New Hampshire does not have the resources to handle that inevitable issue. Studies also show, in particular, that slot machine gambling can be seductively addictive."

"In addition, expanded gaming will not create the jobs supporters will say it will. It will create some high-paying jobs during the initial construction phase. After that its jobs are primarily in food services and janitorial duties, especially if the location in question is a slot machine casino."

We thank Lietz for his insights and courage and we urge casino foes to stay focused and vigilant lest some horrible bill sneak through when no one is looking.